Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been claimed that somehow the so- called wall between law enforcement and intelligence would go back up if the PATRIOT Act expires. That is not true. Even if the relevant change made by the PATRIOT Act expired, there would be no legal barrier to information-sharing, and no wall would go back up, because FISA as it existed pre-PATRIOT Act contained no such barrier. So ruled the FISA court of review in November 2002 at the request of the government. It held that the change we made in the PATRIOT Act to take down the wall was not necessary, that FISA never required a wall, and that the Department of Justice unnecessarily imposed bureaucratic constraints on sharing information. So let us not delude ourselves into thinking that somehow the wall goes back up if PATRIOT expires. It does not. It was not legally required in the first place. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I discussed this with the distinguished majority leader. I will make this unanimous-consent request. Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 2082 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2082, the 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. And I do that because that would keep the PATRIOT Act in existence after December 31.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have only had 2\1/2\ hours of debate on this major matter. We have very little time. I yield up to 3 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield up to 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield up to 3 minutes to another member of the conference, the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an additional 5 minutes be given to each side.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield up to 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and bid farewell to my friend and colleague, Jon Corzine. Our world has changed quite drastically since Jon first joined the Senate. It has been an honor to work with him on the many issues we were forced to confront following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We will miss Jon's leadership and determination on behalf of his constituents in New Jersey and the American people. While Jon has served in the Senate for a relatively short period of time, he leaves an important legacy of leadership on issues ranging from protecting our homeland to crafting legislation that stabilized our financial markets. Rarely in this body does one Senator see the enactment one of their first bills introduced as a freshman Member. But Jon did just that when he called for mandatory Federal standards to protect our Nation's chemical plants and saw that become law. When the entire corporate and financial community was rocked by pervasive accounting scandals, Jon was instrumental in crafting extraordinary changes to accounting oversight that stabilized confidence in our markets when they were teetering. He recognized that Americans were at risk, and he worked tirelessly on their behalf, a legacy that will last well past his last day here in the Capitol. Jon also brought to the Senate an appreciation of open and accountable Government. He saw security and accountability as going hand in hand, a way for citizens to know what their chosen representatives are doing to ensure the health and safety of their own neighborhoods and communities. He recognized the need to balance the ever-changing need for security with the everlasting principles of openness that make our democracy the strongest in the world. I was pleased to work with him to protect the Freedom of Information Act which the current administration has sought to weaken at every turn of the road. As further testament to Jon's leadership and determination, he will certainly be remembered for his work to secure an end to the terrible genocide that the world has witnessed in western Sudan. As the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I can personally attest that Jon repeatedly brought the reality of this terrible tragedy to the attention of all of us. He knew that the solution would not be Democratic or Republican. Instead, he reached across the aisle, demanded a call for action, and spoke eloquently for those without a voice. I will miss my friend Jon Corzine here in the Senate. I have enjoyed the time we shared working together in this body. Marcelle and I wish him all the best as he moves on to the new and exciting challenges that await him in Trenton. His service to the American people in the United States Senate has been selfless. His departure is a loss for the United States Senate but a great gain for the citizens of New Jersey.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are at an interesting point. We have seen an enormous amount of work done by the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, who has worked in good faith with members on both sides of the aisle; and, I might say, it has been done with a great deal of work by myself, but also it has been done with a great deal of work by those who both supported cloture and opposed cloture. Now, one thing that should unite all of us is our opposition to terrorism. We would not serve in this body, actually in this building that faced a possible devastating terrorist attack, if we did not care both for our country and for the Senate and for the Capitol. But there are ways of securing our liberties and ways in which it can appear we are but, instead, we are taking them away. We saw this amazing step in today's news, where Americans are being spied on, not through any court order, not through any act of Congress, not with any oversight, not with any check and balance, but simply by a stroke of the pen of the President, following the advice of the same people in the Department of Justice who advised him that torture was legal. We have rejected the concept that torture is legal. We should reject the concept that we can have Americans spy on Americans with no checks and balances in a free and democratic Nation such as ours. What we want--and I have written many parts of the PATRIOT Act--and what we should have is checks and balances. A democratic nation does not exist without them. I would hope Republicans and Democrats would come together, and the administration, and find a way to go forward with those things that protect America. But ultimately, America is most protected when we have the checks and balances that protect our liberties, the liberties we fought a Revolution to gain, and fought a Civil War and two World Wars to preserve. We can do that. There are cooler heads here. There are distinguished Senators from both parties who can bring this about. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said earlier, I do not question the patriotism or the intent to stop terrorists of either those who vote for or those who vote against cloture. I hope others would not. If we wanted to make this a partisan thing, we could have brought out the fact that even under the laws that existed before 9/11, it was this administration's Department of Justice that ignored clear warnings and evidence that they had, which the 9/11 Commission and others have pointed out might well have prevented the terrorist attacks. That could have been done with or without the PATRIOT Act. All of us rallied behind the administration, even though the attack occurred during this administration and the attack occurred even though this administration's Department of Justice had information which might have stopped the attack. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, with 30 given on the other side.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on May 15, 2005, Ethiopia held the first open, multiparty, democratic elections in its 3,000-year history. It was an important milestone that gave the people of that country a sense of national pride and hope. Unfortunately, the elation that was so evident on election day was short lived. International observers cited serious vote counting irregularities and flaws in the electoral process. Nearly 25 million Ethiopians--90 percent of eligible voters--went to the polls, and early counts indicated strong support for the opposition. As it became clear that the ruling party was in danger of losing its grip on power, the Government stopped the vote counting in a blatant move to manipulate the results. Accusations of vote rigging forced the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia, NEBE, to delay the release of the official results. The controversy led to protests in Addis Ababa, the Oromiya regions, and other provinces. On June 8, in response to protesters challenging the provisional results of the elections, Ethiopian security forces are accused of shooting at least 40 protestors, killing 26, temporarily detaining over 500 student protestors and arresting at least 50 people. Ethiopia's main opposition political party, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party, CUDP, refused to take its seats in Parliament in protest of the election results. Just recently, 50 members of the CUDP took their seats in Parliament, but there is some concern that they were pressured into doing so. Last month, the situation in Ethiopia took a further turn for the worse. On November 1, following street demonstrations that erupted into 4 days of violence when police started shooting, at least 46 protesters were killed in Addis Ababa and other towns, and some 4,000 were arrested. There have been numerous reports of widespread arbitrary detention, beatings, torture, disappearances, and the use of excessive force by police and soldiers against anyone suspected of supporting the CUDP detainees. The detainees include distinguished Ethiopian patriots such as Hailu Shawel, president of the CUDP; Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, former chair of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council; Dr. Yacob Hailemariam, a former U.N. Special Envoy and former prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Ms. Birtukan Mideksa, CUDP vice president and a former judge; and Dr. Berhanu Negga, the recently elected mayor of Addis Ababa and university professor of economics. Today, the entire senior leadership of the CUDP is reportedly in jail and has been held incommunicado in harsh conditions, without access to their families or legal representatives. Amnesty International considers these individuals to be prisoners of conscience who have neither used nor advocated violence. The government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is seeking to charge them with treason, a capital offense, for the ``crime'' of urging their supporters to engage in peaceful protest on their behalf. CUDP leaders are scheduled to appear in court today, presumably to be officially charged with treason. Journalists and members of the media have also been jailed. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Ethiopian authorities have prevented most private newspapers from publishing, arrested or harassed local journalists and their family members, and threatened to charge journalists with treason. Thirteen journalists have been detained since last month's antigovernment protests, including two more who were just arrested this week. It is particularly disturbing, when one considers these events, that since 1991, the government of Prime Minister Meles has received billions of dollars in foreign aid, including to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law in his country. Recently, the European Union suspended its aid to Prime Minister Meles' government and is seeking ways to channel it to the Ethiopian people through private voluntary organizations. Last month, thousands of Ethiopians and their supporters in this country came to Washington to protest the violence and repression by the Meles government and to urge the Bush administration to help establish real democracy and the rule of law in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has been an ally of the United States in combating international terrorism, yet it is using similar tactics against its own people. Over the past several years, Ethiopia has made progress in both political reform and economic development. But that progress has been overshadowed by the tragic events of the past 6 months. The Government's heavy-handed tactics to steal the election and persecute those who sought to play by the rules of democracy, should be universally condemned. The Bush administration should make clear to Prime Minister Meles that if his government does not abide by the basic principles of democracy, due process and respect for human rights, including an end to the use of random searches, beatings, mass arrests and lethal force against peaceful protesters, and if political detainees are not released, that we will join with the European Union and suspend our aid to his government, including our support for financing from the World Bank and the African Development Bank other than for basic human needs. There should be severe consequences for such a flagrant subversion of the will of the Ethiopian people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before I start, with the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania in the Chamber, I totally appreciate what he said about the problems of being the leader on a committee and having to make the decisions of how you are going to get a bill through. I was chairman of the committee when we put through the first PATRIOT Act. I remember the balancing act we went through at that time and how difficult it was to get a bill through. And that PATRIOT Act is this PATRIOT Act. It contains a number of items that I wrote. I also note that throughout, the chairman and I have kept in very close contact. We have spoken several times. I have considered during my 31 years in the Senate that one of the things which has given me the greatest sense of satisfaction is the relationship the distinguished chairman and I have in getting things through, and we have. I am concerned because we have come so close on this. As Senator Salazar noted, yesterday was the anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Yesterday we engaged in debate seeking to protect and reserve those rights under the USA PATRIOT Act. I thank Senators Sununu, Feinstein, Craig, Wyden, Feingold, Salazar, and Obama for their thoughtful remarks, their willingness to work in a bipartisan way which, after all, is the best tradition of the Senate. Let all Members understand, this is a vital debate. The terrorist threat to America's security is very real. It is vital we arm the Government with the tools needed to protect American society and security. At the same time, the threat to civil liberties is also very real in America today. I do read the papers. Today's New York Times reports that over the past 3 years, under a secret order signed by President Bush, the Government has been monitoring international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of people inside the United States-- with no court approval, no checks and balances, one person's signature and that is it. This warrantless eavesdropping program is not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, it is not authorized by any act of Congress, and it is not overseen by any court. According to the report, it is being conducted under a secret Presidential order based on secret legal opinions by the same Justice Department lawyers, the same ones who argued secretly that the President could order the use of torture. It is time to have some checks and balances in this country. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture. The debate is not about whether the Government should have the tools it needs to protect the American people. Of course it should. That is why, as I say, I coauthored the PATRIOT Act 4 years ago. That is why the act passed with such broad bipartisan support. When I voted for that PATRIOT Act, I did not think it was an ideal piece of legislation. I knew it would need careful oversight, but I was in favor of most of the PATRIOT Act. I am in favor of most of the PATRIOT Act now. That is why I voted for the bipartisan Senate bill in July. The distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee got it through our committee unanimously, with Senators from the right to the left voting for it. This debate is not whether it should suddenly expire. Of course it should not. That is why Senators from both parties have offered a bill to extend it in its present form for 3 months in order to give us time to either return to the bipartisan compromise we reached, pass the Senate bill, or reach a new bipartisan compromise. Our goal is to mend the PATRIOT Act, not to end it. None of us want it to expire. Those who threaten to let it expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game. This is a debate about reconciling two shared and fundamental goals--assuring the safety of the American people and protecting their liberty by a system of checks and balances that keeps the Government, their Government, our Government, accountable. America can do better. And we should. Those goals are not the goals of any particular party or ideology. They are shared American goals. How to balance security with liberty and Government accountability was the most fundamental dilemma with which the Framers of our Constitution wrestled. How to adjust that balance with the post- September 11 world is the most fundamental dilemma before this Congress. No one should doubt those who vote for cloture on the conference report care deeply about the liberty of the American people. We all do. No one should doubt that those who vote against cloture are devoted to protecting both the security and liberty of the American people. We all care deeply. However, let us have a Government of checks and balances. In the long run, we are more secure. Our liberties are more secure. Frankly, we are more American in doing that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally passing H.R. 3402, as amended--a carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral compromise to provide for the comprehensive reauthorization of both the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, and the programs and authorities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, DOJ. It has been a long time in coming. I thank Senator Specter, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senators Biden and Kennedy for their hard work and steadfast support for crafting this compromise legislation. I want to especially recognize Senator Biden for his longstanding commitment to finding ways to help end violence against women and children, and his leadership in helping bring the Violence Against Women Act to the floor and in ensuring that its vital programs continue. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers deserve much credit as well for working so closely with us in a bipartisan manner to pass legislation in the House of Representatives. It is no easy task to take two large legislative measures and combine them into a single bipartisan, bicameral agreement. That is exactly what we have done, and we have achieved this milestone because we had the willingness of everyone involved to negotiate in good faith to see VAWA and the Justice Department authorization bill ushered into law this year. I would like to highlight several of the provisions of this bipartisan measure--a bill that combines the Violence Against Women Act, S. 1197, as passed by the Senate, and the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, H.R. 3402, as passed by the House. The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act more than a decade ago marked an important national commitment to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. I am proud to join Senators Biden, Hatch, Specter and others as an original cosponsor of our reauthorization effort. The bill that passed the Senate had 58 cosponsors. Enactment of this measure will further our goal of ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Earlier in my career as a prosecutor in Vermont, I witnessed the devastating effects of domestic violence. Violence and abuse affect people of all walks of life, regardless of gender, race, culture, age, class or sexuality. Such violence is a crime and it is always wrong, whether the abuser is a family member, someone the victim is dating, a current or past spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend, an acquaintance, or a stranger. The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates there were 691,710 non-fatal, violent incidents committed against victims by current and former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends--also known as intimate partners--during 2001. Of those incidents, 85 percent were against women. The rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has fallen steadily since 1993, when the rate was 9.8 incidents per 1,000 people. In 2001, the number fell to 5.0 incidents per 1,000 people, nearly a 50 percent reduction, but still unacceptably high. Tragically, however, the survey found that 1,600 women were killed in 1976 by a current or former spouse or boyfriend, while in 2000 some 1,247 women were killed by their intimate partners. According to the annual Vermont Crime Report, the number of forcible rapes reported in Vermont rose in 2004 to the highest level in seven years, while the amount of violent crime remained unchanged and overall crime fell by about 5 percent from 2003. Reported incidents of rape rose by 58 percent, from 117 in 2003 to 185 in 2004. The average age of the victim was 21, and 47 percent of victims were younger than 18 years old. In 74 percent of the cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance of the victim, and in a quarter of the cases the defendant was a family member or intimate partner of the victim. In only 1 percent of the cases was the perpetrator a stranger. These figures in my home state raise significant concern because violent crime has declined nationwide during that same time period. Numbers like these are why reauthorizing VAWA is so vital. Our Nation has made remarkable progress over the past 25 years in recognizing that domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes. We have responded with better laws, social support and coordinated community responses. But millions of women, men, children and families continue to be traumatized by abuse, leading to increased rates of crime, violence and suffering. The Violence Against Women Act has provided aid to law enforcement officers and prosecutors, helped stem domestic violence and child abuse, established training programs for victim advocates and counselors, and trained probation and parole officers who work with released sex offenders. Now Congress has the opportunity to reauthorize VAWA and make improvements to vital core programs, tighten criminal penalties against domestic abusers, and create new solutions to other crucial aspects of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is an opportunity to help treat children victims of violence, augment health care for rape victims, hold repeat offenders and Internet stalkers accountable, and help domestic violence victims keep their jobs. Included in this bill are reauthorizations of two programs I initially authored that are vital to helping rural communities battle domestic violence in a setting in which isolation can make it more difficult for both victims and law enforcement. In a small, rural state like Vermont, our county and local law enforcement agencies rely heavily on cooperative, interagency efforts to combat and solve significant problems. That is why I sought to include the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program as part of the original VAWA. This program helps make services available to rural victims and children by encouraging community involvement in developing a coordinated response to combat domestic violence, dating violence and child abuse. Adequate resources combined with sustained commitment will bring about significant improvements in rural areas to the lives of those victimized by domestic and sexual violence. The Rural Grants Program section of VAWA 2005 reauthorizes and expands the existing education, training and services grant programs that address violence against women in rural areas. This provision renews the rural VAWA program, extends direct grants to state and local governments for services in rural areas and expands areas to include community collaboration projects in rural areas and the creation or expansion of additional victim services. This provision includes new language that expands the program coverage to sexual assault, child sexual assault and stalking. It also expands eligibility from rural states to rural communities, increasing access to rural sections of otherwise highly populated states. This section authorizes $55,000,000 annually for 2006 through 2010, an increase of $15 million per year. The second grant program initiative on which I have focused is the Transitional Housing Assistance Grants for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault or Stalking. This program, which became law as part of the PROTECT Act of 2003, authorizes grants for transitional housing and related services for people fleeing domestic violence, sexual assault or stalkers. At a time when the availability of affordable housing has sunk to record lows, transitional housing for victims is especially needed. Today more than 50 percent of homeless individuals are women and children fleeing domestic violence. We have a clear problem that is in dire need of a solution. This program is part of the solution. Transitional housing allows women to bridge the gap between leaving violence in their homes and becoming self-sufficient. VAWA 2005 amends the existing transitional housing program by expanding the current direct-assistance grants to include funds for operational, capital and renovation costs. Other changes include providing services to victims of dating violence, sexual assault and stalking; extending the length of time for receipt of benefits to match that used by Housing and Urban Development transitional housing programs; and updating the existing program to reflect the concerns of the service provision community. The provision would increase the authorized funding for this grant program from $30,000,000, to $40,000,000. The reauthorization of VAWA is an important part of our efforts to increase awareness of the problem of violence, to save the lives of battered women, rape victims and children who grow up with violence and to continue progress against the devastating tragedy of domestic violence. I look forward to seeing it signed into law and thus strengthen the prevention of violence against women and children and its devastating costs and consequences. In the 107th Congress, we properly authorized appropriations for the entire Department of Justice for the first time since 1979. We had extended that authorization in 1980 and 1981, but until 2002 neither had Congress passed nor the President signed an authorization bill for the Department. In fact, there were a number of years in which Congress failed to consider any Department authorization bill. This 26-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department forced the Appropriations committees in both chambers to reauthorize and appropriate money. We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long, but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers to create and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees--the ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,'' Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees taking more-active new roles in setting the priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in recent years, the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more important than ever before. Earlier this year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers authored and shepherded through the House of Representatives a new Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, H.R. 3402. I commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in the House of Representatives. It is on that comprehensive authorization of the Justice Department that the bipartisan, bicameral compromise the Senate now considers was built. The bill we are considering today not only authorizes appropriations for the Justice Department for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but also provides permanent enabling authorities to allow the Department to efficiently carry out its mission, clarifies and harmonizes existing statutory authority, and repeals obsolete statutory authorities. It establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms intended to better enable the Congress to oversee DOJ operations. In addition to the important oversight tools provided in the bill, there are many additional sound provisions designed to improve the administration of programs within the Justice Department. For example, in Section 1111 we eliminate duplication by consolidating the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG, program and the Byrne Formula Grant Program into one program--the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program--with the same purposes and simplified administration. We authorize funding for this program at $1.095 billion in FY 2006, which is $678.5 million--or 62 percent--more than the actual amount appropriated, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009. I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG Program, both of which have been continuously targeted for elimination by this Administration. As a senator from a rural State that relies on these grants to combat crime, I have been concerned with the President's proposals for funding and program eliminations of these well- established grant programs. Our legislation makes clear that the same authorized funding levels and uses will be available under the new, consolidated grant program as under the previous ones. When we began negotiations with the House on the Justice Department authorization portion of this package, I expressed to Congressman Sensenbrenner my concerns that a combination of the merger of and drastic funding cuts to these programs will cause smaller states to lose the assistance on which they rely to prevent and control crime and improve the criminal justice system. In rural states, the State Administering Agency and state agencies are the local criminal justice resources; they are more than just state level actors. Additionally, more often than not our rural States are ground zero for the rapidly increasing methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution. It is on Byrne funding that rural States and small towns rely to stem the scourge of methamphetamine. Byrne funding is the backbone of counterdrug enforcement and prosecution efforts in Vermont. Over the years, Vermont has been able to support a broad spectrum of projects within corrections, courts, training, forensics, and domestic violence and victim services. Chances are none of these initiatives will be possible under the new Byrne program formula because of the drop in funding level and funding distribution method. Since FY 2004, after which the new formula was applied, Byrne funds to Vermont have dropped by more than $1.2 million, or 61 percent. Clearly, the Byrne program affords States and communities the ability to use funding for a variety of crime-fighting activities, but unfortunately not the means. I appreciate the willingness of Congressman Sensenbrenner to work with me during our negotiations to find a solution to ease the loss of Byrne grants by small rural States during these tough fiscal times. The agreement we came to provides for reserved funds that allow the Attorney General to set aside up to 5 percent of the total amount made available for Byrne formula grants for States or local governments to combat, address or otherwise respond to precipitous or extraordinary increases in crime; or to prevent, compensate for or mitigate significant programmatic harm resulting from operation of the new Byrne formula. We increase the authorization for grants to drug courts to $70 million for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008. In addition, we provide for targeted technical assistance and training by the newly created Community Capacity Development Office to assist applicants in how to successfully pursue grants under the program, and to strengthen existing State drug court systems. Under that technical assistance and training, the Community Capacity Development Office will consider and respond to the unique needs of rural States, rural areas and rural communities that wish to implement and enhance drug court systems. I am pleased that this compromise package provides an extension through 2009 for the Campbell-Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, an existing matching grant program authorized at $50 million to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. Our former colleague, Senator Campbell, and I authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost. Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and in the closing days of the last Congress we again successfully extended the program's authorization through 2007 by including it in the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-372. Year after year, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program saves the lives of law enforcement officers nationwide by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful DOJ program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, more than 150 municipalities have been fortunate to receive funding for the purchase of 1,400 vests. Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay there would be close to that number of police officers without vests in Vermont today. We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. I am also pleased that we include a $4 million authorization for SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program. SEARCH is the only no-cost service for small- and medium-sized criminal justice agencies nationwide to assist them in enhancing and upgrading their information systems, building integrated information systems that all criminal justice agencies need, and ensuring compatibility between local systems and State, regional and national systems. I thank my colleagues again for supporting the final passage of this compromise package so that all of this bipartisan and bicameral work, as well as all the good that this legislation will do, will reach the President's desk and become law. And again I particularly want to thank Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter and Senators Biden and Kennedy, who worked so hard to help construct a good, fair and balanced compromise. Likewise, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee for working with us to conclude these negotiations so successfully. The staffs of these Members must also be recognized for their tireless work around the clock to bring so many pieces together into a winning package. In particular, the House Judiciary Committee staff has been enormously helpful, including Phil Kiko, Katy Crooks, Brian Benczkowski, George Fishman, Cindy Blackston, Perry Apelbaum, Sampak Garg, Stacey Dansky and Kristin Wells. The Senate Judiciary Committee staff has shown outstanding commitment to this legislation. I want to thank Mike O'Neill, Brett Tolman, Lisa Owings, Joe Jacquot, Juria Jones and Hannibal Kemerer with Chairman Specter; Louisa Terrell, Eric Rosen and Marcia Lee with Senator Biden; and Janice Kaguyutan and Christine Leonard with Senator Kennedy. Last, but by no means least, I want to commend members of my own staff--Bruce Cohen, Ed Pagano, Tara Magner, Matt Nelson and Jessica Berry--for their unfailing support for these provisions, and for their hard work in bringing this compromise package to the floor. I look forward to both Senate and House passage of this bipartisan, bicameral package to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and the Department of Justice. Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation that will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans, and it deserves our full support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 5 additional minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I should note while the distinguished chairman, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, is on the floor, that nobody has worked more diligently or with more of an effort to reach out to both Republicans and Democrats than he has, and to the other body. In many ways, he has a thankless job, because he is committed, as I am, to having the best antiterrorist legislation this country can have. He is committed, as I am, to having the best tools for law enforcement. He is committed, as I am, to making sure our liberties as a people are protected. I am concerned that in the process--not through the fault of the distinguished chairman--many wished to raise further issues involving our liberties, and people were excluded. That is why we are running into a somewhat contentious issue as to whether this conference report should go forward. Earlier this week, I spoke about how the world changed on September 11, 2001. Nearly 3,000 lives were lost on American soil. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress moved to quickly pass antiterrorism legislation. The fires were still smoldering at Ground Zero when the PATRIOT Act became law on October 30, 2001, just 6 weeks after that horrible day. I know how hard we worked. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee when we moved that legislation through. Security and liberty are always in tension in our free society, and especially so in the wake of the attacks of 9/11. The American people today and the next generation of American citizens depend on their elected representatives to strike the right balance. Preventing the needless erosion of liberty and privacy requires constant vigilance and vision from those whom the people have entrusted with writing the laws. It is the 100 men and women in this body who have to protect the rights and liberties of 290 million Americans. I see the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire on the floor, Mr. Sununu. He made reference yesterday to one of my favorite quotes from one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, in which he reminded Americans that those who give up their liberties for security deserve neither, and I might say in the long run get neither. I negotiated many provisions of the PATRIOT Act and am gratified to have been able to add some checks and balances that were not contained in the initial proposal. But as I said at the time, the PATRIOT Act was not the final bill that I or any of the sponsors on either side of the aisle would have written if compromise had been unnecessary. In reviewing the PATRIOT Act this year, Congress once again tried to strike the right balance between the security and the liberty that is the birthright of every American. The public expects and deserves that we will diligently fight to achieve that balance. But regrettably, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill that is now before the Senate does not accomplish the goal of balance. The bipartisan Senate bill which the Senate Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, and then the Senate adopted unanimously-- unanimously, Madam President--reached a better balance. Even that, because it was a matter of compromise, was not a perfect bill. None of us thought it was, and we knew there were matters others insisted be added which we hoped to be improved in conference. But the Senate bill, such as the PATRIOT Act itself, was a legislative compromise achieved through good-faith, bipartisan negotiations. Chairman Specter and I were able to achieve a good enough bipartisan compromise that we were able to gain the support of all the Republicans and all the Democrats serving on the Judiciary Committee, including Senators who sponsored the SAFE Act. As a result of that bipartisan compromise and bipartisan effort, it passed unanimously in the Senate last July. Then the Senate leadership very responsibly moved promptly to appoint conferees. But, unfortunately, the other body did not act as swiftly, and we lost several months that could have been used to seek common ground between the two versions of the bill. The House delayed appointing conferees for several months. They pushed us up against the December 31 deadline from the sunsets in the PATRIOT Act. In fact, it was only last month that the House finally acted to name conferees, and then the conference met only once and that was for opening statements. There was never a working meeting of the conference in which positions were debated and the conferees were able to offer improvements and vote on them. There was no opportunity to debate this conference report at a public meeting of conferees, and no opportunity to offer improving amendments for consideration by the House-Senate conference and votes. Instead--and this is most regrettable--there came a point where Democratic conferees were shut out of the process. Key negotiations took place only among Republican conferees and the administration, especially the Department of Justice. The earlier informal bipartisan discussions of which I had been involved had been promising. Republicans and Democrats were working to come together, and a good deal of progress was being made. Much of what is good about the conference report that is before us is owed to those discussions. I can't help but think what a better bill we would have on the floor today had we not been locked out of those discussions. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for acknowledging this week that we came to those discussions with good ideas for accountability, for sunshine, for increased oversight, for judicial review, and for better standards by which to measure the authorities being considered for the Government. Tentative agreements were also being reached on removing a number of extraneous provisions, particularly from the House-passed bill. The House version of the bill was loaded with extras, many of which had no connection to fighting terrorism. These provisions were tacked onto the bill as floor amendments, with little or no debate. Some raised very serious concerns. For example, the original House bill made significant procedural changes to Federal death penalty laws, including the opportunity for Federal prosecutors to convene a new jury and effectively get a do-over whenever they fail to persuade a jury to impose a death sentence. Can you imagine what this is saying? A jury comes back and says we cannot agree to give this person the death penalty. One of the greatest things about our jurisprudence system is our jury system. They come back and the prosecutor says: We don't like that; throw them out, bring in a new jury; let's do it over; let's keep doing it over until we get the result the Government wants. This and other provisions were dropped or substantially modified during the early days of bipartisan meetings. No one will be surprised to hear that after Democrats were excluded, the negotiations took a turn and resulted in a one-sided conference report. The media reported in banner headlines on November 17 that Congress had arrived at a deal on the PATRIOT Act; it is all over, we are finished. A tad premature. In fact, our first draft conference report was widely criticized by Members of Congress in both parties and across the political spectrum. Among the Republican Senate conferees, there was not the minimum support needed. Since that time, I have continued to work with other Senate conferees to push for improvements. I also reached out to the White House. I was concerned because the administration had gone along with having us excluded and basically stopping the good progress we were making. But I spent time with them; I reached out to them. And I had many discussions with Chairman Specter. The chairman and I have joked on occasion that we spend more time talking with each other, more telephone calls back and forth to each other than anybody else. I say that as a compliment to Senator Specter because, as chairman, he has worked to include Republicans and Democrats in all these matters. I especially commend the other Senate Democratic conferees--Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Levin. They have been constructive throughout the process. Since November 17, when it was reported that this process had been concluded, our efforts led to significant improvements in the conference report. We succeeded in making this a better bill than the earlier one being insisted upon before Thanksgiving. The current bill contains 4-year sunsets, not 7 or 10-year sunsets. It no longer contains a provision that would have made it a crime to merely disclose the receipt of a national security letter. The ban against talking to a lawyer without first notifying the Government in connection with the receipt of a national security letter was modified. Imagine that, it basically said you can't talk to a lawyer before you check in with your Government first. We produced some improvements and better balance, and for that, Americans will be better protected. I believe that there is still more that we can do and should do before finalizing this important measure. There are more improvements that we can make and, I believe, would have made in an open, bipartisan conference. There are more assurances we can include in the law so that the American people can have greater confidence in the law, how it will be utilized and how Congress and the courts will ensure their rights are protected. This week, along with Senator Sununu, Senator Craig, Senator Murkowski, Senator Hagel and others, I cosponsored a bill to provide a short-term extension of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions so that we can continue working to make additional improvements to the law. I was disappointed to hear that some are saying that unless this conference report is passed in this form, they would stand by to allow the PATRIOT Act provisions like that regarding sharing of important information with our intelligence community to expire. Those of us working to improve the bill are not taking that position. We want the best bill we can achieve and the greater protection of Americans' civil liberties. In an editorial just yesterday, USA Today chided the Bush administration and its allies in Congress for ``resist[ing] calls for more meaningful protection against invasion of privacy and abuse of civil liberties.'' It supported the proposal that Senator Sununu and I have advanced to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months to allow more time to fix what is wrong. I am encouraged that an FBI spokesman is now endorsing the improvements we have been able to achieve over the last month and which the administration had initially opposed. I know that together we can do better. I did not sign the conference report in its current form. I understand that on Wednesday more than 200 Members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats, voted to recommit this conference report and continue working to improve it. I have spoken to Senators on both sides of the aisle who would like to see us work out a better bill and stronger protections for the American people. I agree and will continue working to achieve that. I believe that the approach Chairman Specter and I took of working together in a bipartisan manner is the better approach. I think that had we followed through with that approach we would have reached a better balanced bill and the American people would have more confidence in it. It is not just the provisions of the law itself, but the way they are administered and enforced and the perception of the American people that matter. Let me give an example. As librarians and others across the country raised concerns about the use of the business records subpoena authority in the PATRIOT Act, Attorney General Ashcroft could have defused the situation from the outset. Instead he was secretive and scared the American people. He would not work with or share information with the Congress. He claimed variously that the provision had not been used with libraries but then obfuscated when asked whether national security letters were being used in connection with library records. He then classified even the number of subpoenas served upon libraries. When that number was later unclassified, is there any wonder that people remained concerned? He could and should have worked with Congress to develop better standards and review and oversight. This could have been done administratively or with a legislative correction. Instead, he hoarded the information, raised suspicions and attacked anyone who raised questions about how government power was being used. I want to express my appreciation, in particular to Chairman Specter, but also to Chairman Sensenbrenner. I do not question their motivation. I respect them. Together they have worked with us to correct several of the problems and concerns about earlier drafts of this conference report. As I have noted, Chairman Specter did speak with me and we had many, many discussions about these issues throughout this process. I appreciate his efforts. I regret that we were not able to achieve more of what we had achieved--both the bipartisan process and some of the specifics of the Senate-passed bill. Both Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Specter share my interest in congressional oversight, and the conference report is a better bill because of it. Throughout the early informal, bicameral discussions and earlier during the Senate's bipartisan consideration of this matter, I advanced several ``sunshine'' provisions to facilitate oversight and ensure some measure of public accountability for how the government uses its powers. The conference report contains most of these proposals, including public reporting and comprehensive audits on the use of two controversial PATRIOT Act provisions--both business record subpoenas and national security letters. In addition to sunshine provisions, I proposed that we retain the sunset mechanism that worked so well in the original PATRIOT Act. Back in the fall of 2001, Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on 4-year sunsets for certain PATRIOT Act powers with great potential to affect the civil liberties of Americans. Those sunsets contributed greatly to congressional oversight. The fact that they were included is the reason we are going through this important review and renewal process now. This year, I proposed and the Senate agreed to 4-year sunsets on three key provisions. The House initially approved 10-year sunsets on two provisions. With steadfastness and hard work on the part of Senate conferees, we were able to achieve the 4-year sunsets that were in the Senate bill. I commend, as well, Representative Conyers and the House for passing an instruction to the House conferees to abide by the 4- year sunsets. Despite strong majority support in both bodies for 4-year sunsets and even after the House had voted to instruct its conferees, it took weeks to persuade Republican leaders in the House and the administration to accept this commonsense measure. The enhanced oversight provisions and 4-year sunsets are positive features of the conference report to be sure, but many problems remain. Let me touch briefly on some of the flaws in this conference report that are still troubling to Senators from both sides of the aisle and to those concerned about civil liberties advocates from both the right and the left. I will start with the conference report's treatment of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the so-called library provision. Under Section 215, the government can obtain a secret order that compels access to sensitive records of American citizens, potentially library records, and also imposes a permanent gag order on the recipient. Before passage of the PATRIOT Act, there were two significant limitations on the FBI's power to seize business records. First, it could be used only for a few discrete categories of travel records, such as records held by hotels, motels, and vehicle rental facilities. Second, the legal standard for obtaining the order was demanding. The Government had to present specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the subject of the investigation was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. The PATRIOT Act did away with these limitations. It both expanded what the FBI may obtain with a section 215 order and it lowered the standard for obtaining it. Under current law, the government need only assert that something--anything--is sought for an authorized investigation to protect against terrorism or espionage, and the judge will order its production. Under this provision, what counts as an authorized investigation is within the discretion of the executive branch. The Senate, in its reauthorization bill, rightly reestablished a significant check on this power. Under the Senate bill, relevance to an authorized investigation is not enough; the government must also show some connection between the records sought and a suspected terrorist or spy. This is a fundamental protection that would not hamstring the government, but would do much to prevent overreaching in government surveillance. Unfortunately, it was stripped out in conference. The conference report is deficient with respect to section 215 in two other respects. First, unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not permit the recipient of a section 215 order to challenge its automatic, permanent gag order. Courts have held that similar restrictions violate the first amendment. Contrary to what has been suggested this morning, I fought to keep the Senate language on this point, to make sure that a section 215 gag order could be challenged in court. I thought it had been accepted at one point during the early, bipartisan negotiations. It was removed from the working draft when the bipartisanship ended and Democratic conferees were shut out. Second, the conference report allows the Government to use secret evidence to oppose a judicial challenge to a section 215 order. At the Government's request, the court must review any Government submission in secret, regardless of whether it contains classified material. This has the potential to turn an adversarial process into a kangaroo court, and will at a minimum make it extremely difficult for the recipient of a section 215 order to obtain meaningful judicial review that comports with due process. I proposed that we at least allow for limited disclosure, with appropriate security protections, if necessary for the court to make an accurate determination. Again, this modest attempt to allow for meaningful judicial review was tentatively accepted during early bicameral discussions, only to be stripped out when the administration stepped in. The conference report also falls short on its treatment of National Security Letters, or NSLs. These are, in effect, a form of secret administrative subpoena. They are documents issued by FBI agents without the approval of a judge, grand jury, or prosecutor. They allow the agents to obtain certain types of sensitive information about innocent Americans simply by certifying its relevance to a terrorism or espionage investigation. Like section 215 orders, NSLs come with a permanent gag. The recipient of an NSL is prohibited from telling anyone that he has been served. Proponents of this conference report have made much of the fact that it creates an explicit right to challenge an NSL in court. But even under current law, NSLs can be, and have been, successfully challenged. Indeed, in recent litigation, the Government has taken the position that NSL recipients have an implied right to judicial review. Making this right explicit makes sense, but it does not, in itself, offer significant protection. That is particularly so given the one-sided procedures set forth in the conference report, which do not allow meaningful judicial review of NSLs' gag order. The conference report requires a court to accept as conclusive the Government's assertion that the gag is needed, unless the court finds the Government is acting in bad faith. This raises serious first amendment and due process concerns. I cannot understand why anyone would insist on provisions that tie the hands of Federal judges and further reduce our confidence in the use of these tools. Yet, despite strong opposition to this provision from the right and the left sides of the political spectrum, House Republicans refused to strip it out. In an editorial this week, the Washington Post noted the conference report's deficiencies with respect to section 215 orders and NSLs, but called them ``not unsolvable,'' adding ``it's hard to believe the government is today getting much data through uses of these powers that would be forbidden were they written more accurately.'' Alternatively, Democratic conferees proposed a 4-year sunset on the NSL authority. While a sunset is no substitute for substantive improvement, it would at least have ensured that Congress would revisit this issue in depth. We would have had an opportunity, then, to study how these judicial review procedures worked in practice. Again, House Republicans rejected this path to bipartisan compromise. The conference report's treatment of the PATRIOT Act's so-called sneak and peek provision is another area of concern. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act authorized the Government to carry out secret searches in ordinary criminal investigations. Armed with a section 213 search warrant, FBI agents may enter and search a home or office and not tell anyone about it until weeks or months later. It is interesting to recall that 4 years ago, the House Judiciary Committee took one look at the administration's original proposal for sneak and peek authority and dropped it entirely from its version of the legislation. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was able to make some significant improvements in the Administration's proposal, but problems remained. In particular, Section 213 says that notice may be delayed for ``a reasonable period,'' a flexible standard that has been used to justify delays of a year or more. Pre-PATRIOT Act case law stated that the appropriate period of delay was no more than 7 days. The Senate voted to replace the ``reasonable period'' standard with a basic 7-day rule, while permitting the Government to obtain additional 90-day extensions of the delay. The conference report sets a 30-day rule for the initial delay, more than three times what the Senate, and pre-PATRIOT Act courts, deemed appropriate. The shorter period would better protect fourth amendment rights without in any way impeding legitimate Government investigations. The availability of additional 90-day extensions means that a shorter initial time frame should not be a hardship on the Government. This conference report also is loaded with extraneous provisions that have nothing to do with the expiring PATRIOT Act authorities, or even with terrorism. I am particularly concerned that the conference report modifies habeas corpus law, a highly controversial move that is wholly improper to consider in this context. The changes to habeas added here at the insistence of a small number of Republican conferees have nothing to do with terrorism or even more general tools of federal enforcement. These changes were not included in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill of either the House or the Senate. They were added late in the conference process, after all Democratic conferees were shut out of discussions. They received no serious consideration by either body's Judiciary Committee, and have been strongly opposed by the U.S. Judicial Conference and others. And yet these modifications could have very serious consequences--possibly unintended consequences--in habeas cases that are already pending in California and other States. The conference report includes a version of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, a bill that, like the habeas provisions, is extraneous to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. The version in the conference report contains troubling provisions that I wish could have been debated fully before we were forced to vote on them in this context. A portion of the bill lowers the threshold of the amount of money or drugs necessary for a defendant to qualify as a ``kingpin'' and to therefore be subject to a mandatory life sentence. This is an excessively harsh sentence for a pool of people who are not truly drug kingpins. No one has sympathy for producers and dealers of methamphetamines, but the punishment must fit the crime, and in these cases, mandatory life is disproportionate. During early negotiations on the conference report, I fought to strike title II of the House bill, which included provisions that vastly expanded the Federal death penalty and removed important protections for the criminally accused. I already noted one particularly problematic provision, which allowed Federal prosecutors a ``do-over'' whenever they failed to persuade a jury to impose a death sentence. Another provision was designed to carve out a category of homicides that would be eligible for capital punishment despite the fact that the defendant did not himself kill, intend to kill, or knowingly create a grave risk of death. Yet another provision would have substantially narrowed the jury's power to consider, as a reason not to impose the death penalty, the fact that other equally guilty offenders in the same case were escaping such punishment. These extraneous and ill-considered provisions were ultimately dropped from the conference report, for which we should all be grateful. House Republicans did, however, insist on keeping other death penalty provisions in the conference report. The most objectionable of these will revive a small group of pending death penalty prosecutions for aircraft hijacking murders committed in the 1970s and 1980s. Specifically, it is designed to overrule the district court decision in United States v. Safarini, which struck the death penalty for a 1986 hijacking offense on the grounds that the Federal Death Penalty Procedures Act of 1994 could not be retroactively applied to a pre-1994 crime, at least absent clear congressional intent to do so. To my knowledge, Congress has never enacted death penalty legislation intended to allow the execution of a tiny number of known offenders for crimes they are alleged to have committed from one to three decades previously. Whether the Government can ultimately persuade the courts that this does not violate the letter of the Ex Post Facto and Bill of Attainder clauses, it certainly violates their spirit. It is telling that the Department of Justice, in its testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, strongly recommended adding in a severability clause, in case this provision was ultimately held invalid by a court of law. I share the Department's skepticism regarding the constitutionality of this wrong-headed provision, and deeply regret its inclusion in the conference report. The reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act must have the confidence of the American people. I believe what we passed in the Senate would have the confidence of the American people. This conference report would not. Congress should not rush ahead to enact flawed legislation to meet a deadline that is within our power to extend. We owe it to the American people to get this right. The bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator Sununu and others to provide a three-month extension for the expiring provisions of the original PATRIOT Act will give us the time to achieve the best bill for all Americans. This is a vital debate. It should be. These are vital issues to all Americans. If a brief extension is needed to produce a better bill that would better serve all of our citizens then by all means, let us take that time. We should not finalize the conference report on the PATRIOT Act without fully addressing the privacy and civil liberties concerns that remain in the conference report. It is our job in Congress to work as hard as it takes to protect both the security and the freedoms of the people we represent. A nation built on freedom, as America is, can do better, and if we work together, we will do better. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from California 5 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Colorado on the floor. I understand he wishes to speak on this. I ask the Senator how much time would he require?

Mr. LEAHY. And the last colloquy with the Senator from Pennsylvania--

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time is remaining to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?